-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Watch_Dogs reviews
- Thread starter ComputerMKII
- Start date
To me it seems more vibrant, it is less gray/flat for sure. Also less fun as in serious.
Depends on your definition of garbage. I like the driving more than any other open-world game I've played.
Nice. The less fun part sounds about right from what i've seen.
Although i didnt find GTAV to feel gray/flat at all. i thought it was very colorful. Going off screenshots and internet footage, i would of thought WD's would be considered grey/flat next to GTAV.. but again, thats purely from stuff i've seen on the net.
They should probably spend more time with their "homogenization" looking for things that piss everyone off rather than implementing fucking crafting systems.
Although you can skip cutscenes, right? I guess there's the angle of someone screwing up and missing it, going "fuck", and hitting retry immediately.
Windom Earle
Member
Just did a car chase side mission. So so bad. The driving and some mechanics are not even on GTA3 level.
You should really work in the industry.
That sounds a lot like the issues I had with Connor from AC3. I was hoping this'd be smarter given the subject matter.
No "How Daddy Is Doing"? Fail.
Fbh
Member
The GT review actually made the game look fun. Seem like your average Ubisoft game, cool open world, some fun sidestuff to do, gameplay mechanics that are hit and miss and a forgettable story that tries too hard to be all deep and serious.
I guess I'll still go for Mario Kart this week. It comes with another game, plus Nintendo games tend to take forever to get cheaper
I guess I'll still go for Mario Kart this week. It comes with another game, plus Nintendo games tend to take forever to get cheaper
Shadow Moses
Member
what's the word on 360 & ps3 versions for those of us not with next gen consoles yet?
CloakedPuppet
Member
The only review that had me concerned was the Giant Bomb 3/5 but, after seeing that it was Jeff who reviewed it, my worries subsided. I find his taste in pretty much everything questionable to horrendous.
I really like Jeff and his opinions in games, but he is a diehard old school games fan and I feel he shouldn't review modern games anymore. That being said, he still is great at knowing fun gameplay.
gotta wait for watch doge LA
Glass Shark
Banned
I think year after year of Assassin's Creed just broke games like Watch Dogs for me. The first half hour had me bored to tears. I honestly don't know if I will bother to see beyond that.
What a waste.
What a waste.
cuevas. PhD.
Member
Well it's your money. Personally if I just dropped $60 on it I would at least give it longer than that.
CloakedPuppet
Member
How does this change my opinion of his taste?
I'm not saying that his review is not well written or insightful (I'm sure it is) - just that I tend to ignore Gerstmann reviews most of the time. That's my prerogative since I don’t get his outlook on many things. The same goes for real life recommendations from friends, family and co-workers whose taste doesn't jive with mine.
I like Jeff and have been an avid Bombcast listener for years. Sorry if my method of review filtering offends you.
Chittagong
Gold Member
This game is doing significantly better than I would have gathered from GAF. Seems my 78% prediction was low.
I'm guessing all reviews are based off the PS4 version. You'll probably have to wait for user impressions for last gen games now.
Edit: Found one french review of the PS3 version:
http://www.gameblog.fr/tests/1954-watch-dogs-ps3
haha, I'm gonna grind another ten or so hours. But yeah, the last few hours of ACIV reallly hurt to 'play'.
YOU CAN'T ANSWER AN "OR" QUESTION WITH A "YES" OR "NO"!
Well, I do think it's not unreasonable to be very weary of any game that was in the 60s and under, but yeah it'd really suck if I slavishly followed Metacritic and was stupid enough to blow off low 80s entirely. Lots of fantastic games are in low 80s, far too many to make that even remotely practical to follow. Not unless I really did love every game that'd get 90s and high 80s, but that's not the case!
Pestilence11
Member
Of course. Good not great reviews means wait. Only games 95+ are worthy of day one, obviously.
Awaiting my Day 1 Edition from the postal service.
It's reasonable to use aggregation sites like metacritic for judging games as long as you wait for the embargo to pass so the aggregate score is reasonable. If a game really is THAT GOOD, then the scores will confirm it. Otherwise it's just hype. If people relied on reviews instead hype then perhaps we wouldn't be subjected to a torrent of bullshit in the first place.
there are plenty of utterly fantastic games with under 60 on metacritic, games that are the game of the generation for some people
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Holy shit, one my favourite games of the generation got 75. Haha even more reason to disregard it.
If I took the opinions of critics and reviewers as the gospel truth I would have missed out on many games I love. Applied to movies, I would have also come to the conclusion that Chicago is one of the best movies ever made.
I think many people give way too much weight and importance to the opinions of critics.
I know right, that is SO lame
I agree.
When I was playing mainly on x360 where games were more expensive than on PC I was buying almost always games that are 80+ on metacritic and also not day one.
Now on PC where prices are a lot lower I started buying and playing games without looking on scores and to be honest I often have more fun playing games that are 7 or even 6 on metacritic than some big budget 90+ titles.
It's very often when I can't figure out why some games have so bad scores.
It's of course everyone's own decision how to choose games but yes,metacritic and reviews in general mean very little for me.
This game ended up being exactly what I thought it would after the first trailer.
It's a fun, albeit non-groundbreaking, open world game with a neat hacking mechanic. Really, if you go by the trailers and the initial reveal, it was never purported to be anything other than that.
It's a fun, albeit non-groundbreaking, open world game with a neat hacking mechanic. Really, if you go by the trailers and the initial reveal, it was never purported to be anything other than that.
LithiumSpade
Member
This is all I can give you so far (repost from a few pages back)
Couple of hours in on the 360 version, my opinions:
- Graphically, it's not GTA V, but i'm impressed what they've managed to cram in and yet maintain a steady framerate. Some periods of severe screen tearing, but almost entirely limited to cutscenes.
- Lack of free roam multiplayer and dashboard cam in the last-gen versions is a tiny niggle, but slightly disappointing
- Story has at least got me interested enough to see what's next, which I can't say for every game
- Cars handle just fine, there's a decent variety to them, although collisions are a bit iffy I feel (I enjoyed Sleeping Dogs and GTA V, for reference)
- Invading other people's games is great
- Overall gameplay is really enjoyable, glad I bought it and looking forward to seeing what else I can do (hacking the first CTos tower without ever setting foot in it was pretty awesome).
Overall first impressions: 8.5/10, could go up or down depending on how it all plays out!
Ingueferroque
Banned
Usgamer got paid, right?
The screenshots in that review are straight from Ubisoft, and before I even could read the review there was an ad for watch dogs at the top,
The screenshots in that review are straight from Ubisoft, and before I even could read the review there was an ad for watch dogs at the top,
LithiumSpade
Member
This is sarcastic, right? Below the average score for the game, and you're still claiming bribery? Have you actually played it/are you capable of accepting other people's opinions even if they're different to your own?
Why does the OP only have the PS4 metacritic listed? Where is PC or XBO? Both the 360 and the PS3 didn't have review code sent out it would seem.
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs - 81%
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs - 77%
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/watch-dogs - 81%
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/watch-dogs - 77%
They have 6 and 8 reviews, respectively.
The Metacritic score is nonsense with so few ratings.
velociraptor
Junior Member
Reviews are very good. I have no idea why you are all complaining. Just because a game isn't rated 90+ does not mean it's a game not worth playing.
I actually prefer this trend of lower review scores. Perhaps it will give more meaning to '80 rated games'. I must admit I had expected the metacritic score to be in the 70s rather than the 80s.
8/10 = good, solid game. Worth playing.
I actually prefer this trend of lower review scores. Perhaps it will give more meaning to '80 rated games'. I must admit I had expected the metacritic score to be in the 70s rather than the 80s.
8/10 = good, solid game. Worth playing.
That's revolting.
Shitty memes populating the game.
Yep, sorry it was sarcasm.